AA: More harm than good?

That's really sad. We need more minorities in the law profession. I could check the URM box myself - I'm half Mexican, but I think I got the LSAT score I deserve, and will attend a school where I can excel. It's sad that minorities who check that box end up dropping out because they can't keep up. If the differnce is getting into law school or not, I can see why they do it, but if you get a 165 on your LSAT, HYS are going to chew you up and spit you out.

Should your law school spit you out for displaying such ignorance? I'll let you answer that question. LOL

2Lacoste, an LSD regular, is doing well at HLS and will graduate from HLS in 2009. He got into HLS, U Mich, and UVA with a 3.5sumthin and a 163 LSAT. URMs and non-URMs with LSAT scores under 165 attend top law schools and do well all the time. Please GROW UP and get over your half-Mexican self!

That's really sad. We need more minorities in the law profession. I could check the URM box myself - I'm half Mexican, but I think I got the LSAT score I deserve, and will attend a school where I can excel. It's sad that minorities who check that box end up dropping out because they can't keep up. If the differnce is getting into law school or not, I can see why they do it, but if you get a 165 on your LSAT, HYS are going to chew you up and spit you out.

You're a damn fool,

Annabel Lee got a 163 on the LSAT and got into HYSCCN and attended Yale. If getting a bunch of Hs in your first year classes is getting chewed up and spit out, then yes.

That's really sad. We need more minorities in the law profession. I could check the URM box myself - I'm half Mexican, but I think I got the LSAT score I deserve, and will attend a school where I can excel. It's sad that minorities who check that box end up dropping out because they can't keep up. If the differnce is getting into law school or not, I can see why they do it, but if you get a 165 on your LSAT, HYS are going to chew you up and spit you out.

You're a damn fool,

Annabel Lee got a 163 on the LSAT and got into HYSCCN and attended Yale. If getting a bunch of Hs in your first year classes is getting chewed up and spit out, then yes.

It should be duly noted by this point, based on posts like the one above, that EASTEND rarely has any idea of what she is talking about with respect to law school, law in general, the LSAT, AA, admissions....

....the list goes on apparently.

Correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but scoring a 165 puts you in the 90+ percentile of all LSAT takers right? The difference between a 165 and a 170 is something nominal, like 3 actual questions on the LSAT right? Basically, we would be splitting hairs between somebody in the, say 95th percentile (taking a guess on where 165 falls) and the say, 99th percentile.

So....how again would Harvard Yale or Stanford chew one up and spit one out exactly if they scored a 165 on the LSAT? Professors must petition at Stanford and Harvard to even give any grade lower than a B- and Yale has no grades at all. In fact, looking at the attrition rates for each school, not so much as a single student left Harvard, Yale, or Stanford for academic reasons. Not one. Everybody who got into these schools was able to hack it, and as we can see by the employment %'s, practically all of them got jobs.

Eastend, you might want to do the research first before making any further unsubstantiated claims in the future. Afterall, we are aspiring to be attorneys here right? Attorneys typically look things up first, and then talk.

I agree that anyone who get into HYS, URM boost or no, can make it there. That doesn't mean this is true otherwise, especially in the lower teirs. People could be accepted into schools way above their proficiency level and drown in the course work. Just because that's true at the top doesn't mean that AA doesn't have the negative effect the article describes.

The difference between a 165 and a 170 is something nominal, like 3 actual questions on the LSAT right? Basically, we would be splitting hairs between somebody in the, say 95th percentile (taking a guess on where 165 falls) and the say, 99th percentile.

You're wrong. Generally, the difference between 165 and 170 is 5-6 questions. Furthermore, the difference between the 95th and 99th percentile is around 8 questions.

The chance of an identical student having a difference of 8 questions (or 7 points, a typical URM boost) is at least two SDs off the mean. In other words, it's not something that will happen simply due to dumb luck.

Carry on with the arguments as to why a black student and a white student with identical socio-economic backgrounds who attended the very same schools from K-16 should have different opportunities if both decide to attend law school. It makes for fascinating reading.

You're wrong. Sorry. The difference between 95th percentile and 99th percentile is at most 3 questions. Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about.

The difference between a 165 and a 170 is something nominal, like 3 actual questions on the LSAT right? Basically, we would be splitting hairs between somebody in the, say 95th percentile (taking a guess on where 165 falls) and the say, 99th percentile.

You're wrong. Generally, the difference between 165 and 170 is 5-6 questions. Furthermore, the difference between the 95th and 99th percentile is around 8 questions.

The chance of an identical student having a difference of 8 questions (or 7 points, a typical URM boost) is at least two SDs off the mean. In other words, it's not something that will happen simply due to dumb luck.

Carry on with the arguments as to why a black student and a white student with identical socio-economic backgrounds who attended the very same schools from K-16 should have different opportunities if both decide to attend law school. It makes for fascinating reading.

You're wrong. Sorry. The difference between 95th percentile and 99th percentile is at most 3 questions. Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about.

Wanna bet? Here's a sample I was able to find off-hand from last year (June 2006)...

Say what you will, but the difference is most definitely closer to 8 questions than three (in terms of scores, a 165/6 v. a 172; the exact raw numbers vary, but the delta of 7-8 questions is more stable and the general translation of the scores above).

The difference between a 165 and a 170 is something nominal, like 3 actual questions on the LSAT right? Basically, we would be splitting hairs between somebody in the, say 95th percentile (taking a guess on where 165 falls) and the say, 99th percentile.

You're wrong. Generally, the difference between 165 and 170 is 5-6 questions. Furthermore, the difference between the 95th and 99th percentile is around 8 questions.

The chance of an identical student having a difference of 8 questions (or 7 points, a typical URM boost) is at least two SDs off the mean. In other words, it's not something that will happen simply due to dumb luck.

Carry on with the arguments as to why a black student and a white student with identical socio-economic backgrounds who attended the very same schools from K-16 should have different opportunities if both decide to attend law school. It makes for fascinating reading.

You're wrong. Sorry. The difference between 95th percentile and 99th percentile is at most 3 questions. Don't speak unless you know what you're talking about.

Wanna bet? Here's a sample I was able to find off-hand from last year (June 2006)...

Say what you will, but the difference is most definitely closer to 8 questions than three (in terms of scores, a 165/6 v. a 172; the exact raw numbers vary, but the delta of 7-8 questions is more stable and the general translation of the scores above).

just browsing around the board. i found this part of the article the most shocking:

"As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial."